Toronto Local Appeal Body
40 Orchard View Blvd, Suite 253 Toronto, Ontario M4R 1B9
24 140822 S45 03 TLAB
1000275129 Ontario Inc (Re), 2024 ONTLAB 262
WRITTEN MOTION DECISION AND ORDER
Issuance Date: September 16, 2024
PROCEEDINGS COMMENCED UNDER subsection 45(1) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended
Appellant(s): 1000275149 ONTARIO INC
Applicant(s): DESTIL DESIGN INC
Property Address: 699 ROYAL YORK RD
COA File No.: 24 118207 WET 03 MV (A0089/24EYK)
TLAB Case File No.: 24 140822 S45 03 TLAB
Hearing Date(s): September 4, 2024
Deadline Date for Closing Submissions/Undertakings:
Decision Delivered By: TLAB Chair D. LOMBARDI
REGISTERED PARTIES AND PARTICIPANTS:
People Type
First Initial. Last Name
Representative
Applicant
DESTIL DESIGNS INC.
Appellant
1000275149 ONTARIO INC
P. Szkuc
Party (TLAB)
S. HAGGAN-BABIC
Party (TLAB)
H. RALPH
Party (TLAB)
J. WARWICK
Party (TLAB)
L. SCHULTZ
Party (TLAB)
A SCHULTZ
INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT
1This matter arises by way of a Written Motion brought by Pawel Szkuc on behalf of 1000275149 Ontario Inc., the Appellant and owner of the property municipally known as 699 Royal York Road (subject property).
2Mr. Szkuc applied to the City of Toronto (City) Committee of Adjustment (COA) for three (3) variances to permit the construction of a two-storey garden suite in the rear yard of the subject property (Application).
3The three variances requested seek relief from the provisions in Zoning By-law 569-2013 to permit the proposed ancillary building containing the garden suite to penetrate the angular planes projected: from a distance of 7.5 m from the rear main wall of the main residential building; from the required rear yard setback; and from the required north and south side yard setbacks, respectively.
4The COA heard the Application on April 11, 2024, and refused the requested variances. Mr. Szkuc subsequently appealed the matter to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) which set a Hearing date for September 4, 2024, to hear the appeal.
5On August 16, 2024, Mr. Szkuc filed a Notice of Written Motion (Form 7) and associated Affidavit (Form 10) with the TLAB. The Motion seeks relief from Rules 16.2 and 27.1 of the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules) to permit the Appellant to confidentially submit letters from neighbours who have no objection to the variances being sought for the presiding Panel Chair’s review only.
6If granted, the Motion would restrict the public visibility of these letters to the TLAB Member presiding on the matter and not any of the Parties in opposition to the Application.
7In light of the circumstances of the filing of this Written Motion in proximity to the scheduled Hearing of the Appeal on September 4, 2024, the TLAB set the Written Motion Hearing date to coincide.
8The Appellant argues in his Motion and corresponding Affidavit that confidentiality is required regarding the letters in question “…to protect the privacy and harmony of our neighbours, as public disclosure may lead to unnecessary conflicts and retaliatory actions from certain neighbours. We believe that handling this matter with confidentiality will serve the best interests of all parties involved.”1
9Three (3) neighbours, Mss. Sharon Haggan-Babic, Helia Ralph, and Lala Schultz, who elected Party status in the Appeal, each filed a Notice of Response to Motion (Form 8) opposing the relief being sought by Mr. Szkuc.
10Each Party argued that the letters must be shared with all the Parties in this matter in accordance with the TLAB’s Rules. In the alternative, they asserted that the letters should be inadmissible in the Appeal.
THE LEGISLATIVE POLICY AND FRAMEWORK
11The legislative policy and framework regarding this Motion falls within the TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and, specifically, the following:
16.2 – Parties and Participants shall Serve on all Parties a copy of every Document they intend to rely on or produce in the Hearing, except:
a) any Document previously Filed with the Committee of Adjustment;
b) any Public Document listed on the TLAB’s List of Public Documents; and,
c) any Document previously Filed by a Party or Participant,
and File same with the TLAB no later than 60 Days after a Notice of Hearing is Served.
27.1 – All TLAB Proceedings shall be public, unless the TLAB orders otherwise.
EVIDENCE
12The Notice of Written Motion filed on August 16, 2024, is accompanied by an affidavit (Affidavit) which attempts to set out the grounds and facts upon which the Moving Party relies to support the relief being sought.
13The Affidavit is signed by Mr. Szkuc and makes several allegations and accusations of harassment and aggressive behaviour by certain neighbours against contractors working on the subject property. In the Affidavit, Mr. Szkuc submits that the kind of hostile behaviour alleged “…creates an unwelcome atmosphere and leads to frequent uncomfortable situations, significantly impacting the contractor’s ability to work peacefully.”2
14Furthermore, he asserts that if the two letters from the supportive neighbours are made public, they (the authors of the letters) would encounter the same alleged treatment being experienced by the contractors as outlined by Mr. Szkuc in his Affidavit.
15In their Responses to Motion, the opposing Parties refute Mr. Szkuc’s allegations suggesting, rather, that they are the ones being harassed. All three Parties assert that the fundamental issue in this regard is a lack of transparency on Mr. Szkuc’s part, about the proposed development of the subject property.
16They argue that the TLAB should refuse the relief being sought by Mr. Szkuc in his Motion and that having all documents in this Appeal matter served on all the Parties is not only required by the TLAB’s Rules but will also result in “…having an even playing field.”3
17More importantly, Ms. Ralph, in her Response to Motion filing, noted that Mr. Szkuc actually shared one of the letters in question in his Applicant’s Disclosure (Form 3).
18She also asserted that the neighbour who allegedly wrote that letter had previously submitted a letter to the Committee of Adjustment, dated March 27, 2024, “strongly opposing” (her words) the 699 Royal York Road application. Ms. Ralph attached a copy of that March 27th letter to her Response to Motion.
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
19The TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, its Forms, and its Practice Directions all attempt to advance a set of core principles that help to guide the Tribunal to achieve its mandate of securing the just, most expeditious and cost-effective disposition of every Proceeding on its merits.
20The following four core guiding principles are germane to the Motion before the TLAB (emphasis added where noted):
The TLAB is in service to all Persons with an interest in an appeal, and appeals are to be disposed of in an efficient, timely, cost-effective, open and fair process to stakeholders.
The TLAB’s Rules of Practice and Procedure establish fixed hearing dates and exchange obligations that are set out in advance.
The TLAB requires full disclosure of positions and evidence from all persons with an interest in an appeal.
Early disclosure of positions, interests, evidence and issues is fundamental to a fair hearing process.
21The matter of ‘Disclosure’ is addressed in the TLAB’s Rules under Rule 16.
22Rule 16.2 states that Parties and Participants shall serve on all Parties a copy of every Document they intend to rely on or produce in the Hearing with very few exceptions, and file same with the TLAB no later than 60 Days after the Notice of Hearing is served.
23Furthermore, Rule 16.3 states that where a Party or Participant fails to disclose Documents in accordance with 16.2, the TLAB may, on objection, disallow the Document(s) to be entered as evidence and may make such other orders as it deems appropriate under the circumstances.
24These Rules and the core guiding principles are in place so that everyone who participates in an appeal matter before the TLAB is made aware of the issue or issues in dispute well before the Hearing; this prevents ‘trial by ambush’.
25Transparency and openness are key values in TLAB appeals and ensure that the process is fair for all.
26In the matter at hand, the TLAB does not find merit in the Appellant’s Motion request nor the assertions and allegations made in the submissions regarding his neighbours.
27Moreover, the TLAB is not the forum in which to address any of these serious allegations asserted by the Appellant and the Tribunal will not do so in this Decision.
28The allegations put forward by Mr. Szkuc in the Notice of Motion (Form 7) and the accompanying Affidavit (Form 10) are serious and troubling and the TLAB has determined that they have no place in the TLAB appeal process.
29The relief sought by Mr. Szkuc is refused and the TLAB will not release the Appellant from the requirements of Disclosure pursuant to Rule 16 of the TLAB’s Rules.
30Doing so would be antithetical to the Tribunal’s core principles of an open, transparent and fair hearing process.
31Furthermore, Mr. Szkuc’s Motion is also somewhat immaterial given that he has already revealed the identities and addresses of the two neighbours whose letters he seeks to expose for the review only of the presiding Panel Member. He did so on page 5 in his Notice of Appeal, under the heading “Part 8: Other Applicable Information,” which he filed on April 25, 2024.
32More vexing, however, is the fact that he also attached a copy of one of the letters to the Notice of Appeal (Form 1).
33When questioned by the TLAB to explain the dichotomy of why, on the one hand, keeping the identities of the neighbours in support of the Application confidential is essential to his appeal, but on the other hand, he has previously and somewhat inadvertently revealed that information for public view, Mr. Szkuc provided no response or explanation.
DECISION AND ORDER
34The relief requested by Mr. Szkuc in his Notice of Motion, dated August 16, 2024, is not granted.
35The presiding Panel Member provided the Parties with this decision orally at the commencement of the September 4, 2024, Hearing and advised that a Written Motion Decision would be forthcoming.
D. Lombardi TLAB Panel Chair